Tahir Ashrafi’s Clever Defence of Blasphemy Law !

Right-wing groups have taken a turn in defence of Rimsha in what appears to be little more than a desperate attempt to defend the blasphemy law in the face of public outcry. Realising that the Rimsha case has exposed the blasphemy law for what it is – a colonial-era law used as a weapon against personal or political enemies – these groups have crafted a careful response that calls for ‘fairness’ for Rimsha, but ultimately keeping the status quo.

as per this thread it shows as if you oppose blasphemy law just because sometimes some hideous people use this law for their personal interests........???

dear sir i want to ask you that all over the world and especially in pakistan many laws are used by the people for their personal agenda as many a times people file a false case of theft and even in some extreme cases of rape attempt on their opponents...... shall on these grounds we should abolish all laws once for all as somehow there are chances that each law can be used for bad purpose .........why then there is such an outrage just against blasphemy law??

its not the law which is bad as in my sense if there is no blasphemy law in place then there will be more chances of mob justice and in that case even if an innocent person is killed then whatever you do you can't bring back that person but if the law is in place and the persons who really are innocent can be saved through the courts procedures and those who did this hideous act of blasphemy get their ultimate fate by the courts not by the people....

Mullahs are on the defensive after the Ramsha case which is a big blow to the Blasphamists (supporters of oppressive Blasphemy law) and they know if they did not handle the situation eventually it would swing against them in opposition of the Blasphemy law. This is their attempt at damage control and to maintain their control, in guise of sympathy for Ramsha.

Blasphemy law is wrong. Period. You can’t kill people for faith as all faiths are essentially imagined as no one has seen God with their own eyes or have confirmed with Him what is really the true faith or the correct version of a faith.

Practically Blasphemy law has generated more hate and none of the respect that it aimed to achieve so it has failed miserably in achieving its objectives at the cost of numerous tragedies, which could have been avoided had Blasphemy law not existed.

Blasphemy law is just Punjabi-Fauji-Molvi gardi. All three love to oppress people any way they can and Blasphemy law is just one tool in their arsenal.

The Court of Justice for the European Union has decided that those unable to openly practice their religion have the right to seek asylum. The decision is likely to affect German asylum policies.

Not every interference with free religious practice constitutes persecution, the judges in Luxembourg ruled. The most decisive factor for the granting of asylum is the seriousness of the consequences for those attempting to practice their religion, the court concluded.

A minor Christian girl who possibly suffers from a mental disability should not be jailed, tried or convicted for blasphemy. That much we can all, including, surprisingly enough, the Pakistan Ulema Council (PUC), agree on. Let us not fall into the trap, though, of surrendering the debate to those who think the only problem with these laws is that they do not place a high enough burden of proof on the accuser. And certainly, let us not delude ourselves into believing that the PUC can be even a temporary ally. Sure, when arguing the case for Rimsha’s release we can use the “even the PUC agrees with us” line as a debating point. But the focus should remain on the injustice of the blasphemy laws themselves, not the abuse of the laws.

Focusing on the way the laws are supposedly misused is being used as a utilitarian tactic to slowly change minds. What this approach ignores is that abuse is inherent to any law that criminalises speech and conduct.